Canon EOS 5D Mark IV to Come Before NAB [CR2]

[jrista]

That number shouldn't be surprising at all, read noise scales linearly with pixel area.

Shouldn't the A7S have a higher RN than the 1Dx, then?

                         ISO 	Measured ISO    Read Noise (e-)       Pixel size
Model 	EOS-1DX 	 100 	80 	               38.5            6.9 micron
Model 	A7S 	         100  	80 	               21.9            8.3 micron

That being said, if someone was offering, I'd take the 1Dx

Sony's using superior technology that gives lower read noise so you can't really compare them directly. A better comparison would be a Nikon D600 with a D800.

Model D800 100 74 4.6 48818 13.4
Model D600 100 79 7.4 76444 13.3

Read noise ratio is (7.4/4.6) ~ 1.6 and pixel area ratio (rough estimate since I'm not accounting for fill factor differences)is (5.9/4.7)^2 ~ 1.57.

There isn't necessarily a scaling of read noise with pixel size. On one level, bigger pixels can accumulate more electrons in their photodiodes, so there is more to be read out, and that could, assuming everything else is identical, result in higher noise. It just takes longer to move that charge around the system, meaning there is more opportunity for noise to be introduced by the myriad of things that can introduce noise.

However, there are also a multitude of factors that play a role in where noise is introduced and how much. Lower readout frequency will usually introduce less noise, regardless. That is usually where improvements in read noise come from. For example, the parallelization of ADC units allows each unit to be reduced in frequency, without losing overall frame readout frequency. Moving from a single ADC to a handful of parallel ADC units allowed Canon, once upon a time, to reduce their read noise a bit. As they have continued to jack up frame rate, those previous gains have been erased in some recent cameras (i.e. the 1D X). Moving to column-parallel ADC allowed Sony to greatly reduce the operating frequency of their ADC units, and paired with some other technological improvements (including fabrication process and materials), they made significant gains in lowering read noise. There are patents for future sensors with per-pixel ADC units, or the true hyper-parallelization of ADC, which allows them to operate at even lower frequency with even further reduced noise.

There are other ways of reducing noise as well. Converting to digital at the earliest opportunity (i.e. CP-ADC or PP-ADC) allows digital transmission, and better error-corrected digital transmission, to be used, thus reducing any further potential for noise to practically nothing (it can still happen, but it's a lot more difficult for a digital signal to become corrupted when you use error-corrected transmission.)

These kinds of improvements can be applied to pixels of any size, so there is not guaranteed to be an increase in read noise with pixel area.

 

[3kramd5]

Sony's using superior technology that gives lower read noise so you can't really compare them directly.

You can if you're a buyer in the market and aren't holding yourself to one particular generation from one particular vendor.

The concern at hand wasn't the 1DX versus another camera with the same technology using smaller pixels, it was the 1DX versus a camera with up to current technology.

"Find me a camera this generation or later with base read noise that high anywhere else."

That number shouldn't be surprising at all, read noise scales linearly with pixel area.

He doesn't want it because it has high RN at base ISO. You suggested that was due to pixel area. Clearly, there's more at play than pixel area, and hence his concern with RN is valid.

 

[raptor3x]

Sony's using superior technology that gives lower read noise so you can't really compare them directly.

You can if you're a buyer in the market and aren't holding yourself to one particular generation.

The concern at hand wasn't the 1DX versus another camera of the same technology, it was the 1DX versus a camera with up to current technology.

"Find me a camera this generation or later with base read noise that high anywhere else. 38.5e-! That is insane!"

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Jrista said that the 1DX was the noisiest Canon camera and used the 5D3 as an example. I pointed out that the 1DX is slightly less noisy than the 5D3 when you normalize for pixel size. You said "Shouldn't the A7S have a higher RN than the 1Dx, then?". But as I noted, and Jrista highlighted, pixel area isn't the only aspect that controls read noise, just one. If you look at cameras using similar technology, you'll see that the read noise scales reasonably closely with pixel area.

 

[jrista]

Sony's using superior technology that gives lower read noise so you can't really compare them directly.

You can if you're a buyer in the market and aren't holding yourself to one particular generation.

The concern at hand wasn't the 1DX versus another camera of the same technology, it was the 1DX versus a camera with up to current technology.

"Find me a camera this generation or later with base read noise that high anywhere else. 38.5e-! That is insane!"

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Jrista said that the 1DX was the noisiest Canon camera and used the 5D3 as an example. I pointed out that the 1DX is slightly less noisy than the 5D3 when you normalize for pixel size. You said "Shouldn't the A7S have a higher RN than the 1Dx, then?". But as I noted, and Jrista highlighted, pixel area isn't the only aspect that controls read noise, just one. If you look at cameras using similar technology, you'll see that the read noise scales reasonably closely with pixel area.

+1

With similar technology, you should see some scaling. It may not always be linear, but with the same general technology, you should see reasonably correlated scaling. Just because bigger pixels hold more charge, and it takes more to move that charge around. To move it around in the same time, you usually need to operate at a higher frequency, which will usually add more read noise.

 

[3kramd5]

Sony's using superior technology that gives lower read noise so you can't really compare them directly.

You can if you're a buyer in the market and aren't holding yourself to one particular generation.

The concern at hand wasn't the 1DX versus another camera of the same technology, it was the 1DX versus a camera with up to current technology.

"Find me a camera this generation or later with base read noise that high anywhere else. 38.5e-! That is insane!"

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Jrista said that the 1DX was the noisiest Canon camera and used the 5D3 as an example. I pointed out that the 1DX is slightly less noisy than the 5D3 when you normalize for pixel size. You said "Shouldn't the A7S have a higher RN than the 1Dx, then?". But as I noted, and Jrista highlighted, pixel area isn't the only aspect that controls read noise, just one. If you look at cameras using similar technology, you'll see that the read noise scales reasonably closely with pixel area.

What I'm getting at is that he quoted the RN for the 1Dx, and immediately after said "Find me a camera this generation or later with base read noise that high anywhere else." It didn't say find me a canon camera. It was any camera, open-ended. I read everything that followed accordingly, and interpreted your post as suggesting pixel size was the dominant factor.

"It's noisy."
"Of course it's noisy, the pixels are big."

My mistake.

 

[jrista]

Sony's using superior technology that gives lower read noise so you can't really compare them directly.

You can if you're a buyer in the market and aren't holding yourself to one particular generation.

The concern at hand wasn't the 1DX versus another camera of the same technology, it was the 1DX versus a camera with up to current technology.

"Find me a camera this generation or later with base read noise that high anywhere else. 38.5e-! That is insane!"

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Jrista said that the 1DX was the noisiest Canon camera and used the 5D3 as an example. I pointed out that the 1DX is slightly less noisy than the 5D3 when you normalize for pixel size. You said "Shouldn't the A7S have a higher RN than the 1Dx, then?". But as I noted, and Jrista highlighted, pixel area isn't the only aspect that controls read noise, just one. If you look at cameras using similar technology, you'll see that the read noise scales reasonably closely with pixel area.

What I'm getting at is that he quoted the RN for the 1Dx, and immediately after said "Find me a camera this generation or later with base read noise that high anywhere else." It didn't say find me a canon camera. It was any camera, open-ended. I read everything that followed accordingly.

Yes. The A7s is a great example of how improved technology can dramatically lower read noise. It's got huge 8.3 micron pixels, and operates at a relatively high frequency for 4k video, and still has lower read noise than the 1D X. The technological improvements are what help there. The technological improvements are what break the otherwise expected scaling of read noise with pixels size.

 

[raptor3x]

"It's noisy."
"Of course it's noisy, the pixels are big."

"It's the noisiest Canon camera"
"It's actually slightly better than the 5D3 when you account for pixel size"

I never said anything about other brand cameras in the original post. I only addressed the claim that the 1DX was the noisiest Canon camera.

 

[3kramd5]

"It's noisy."
"Of course it's noisy, the pixels are big."

"It's the noisiest Canon camera"
"It's actually slightly better than the 5D3 when you account for pixel size"

I never said anything about other brand cameras in the original post. I only addressed the claim that the 1DX was the noisiest Canon camera.

Fair enough, I was just misreading (or, rather, misinterpreting).

 

[JMZawodny]

I definitely want the IQ improvements. The 1D X is the noisiest sensor Canon has. Compared to the noise levels I'm used to working with these days, it's INSANELY noisy.

Just curious where you're getting this from. I've owned pretty much every Canon FF body at this point and this has been the exact opposite of my experience. DxO and Sensorgen seem to disagree with you as well.

To quote sensorgen:

"Model EOS-1DX 100 80 38.5 90101 11.2"

Find me a camera this generation or later with base read noise that high anywhere else. 38.5e-! That is insane!

I use my 5D III occasionally for landscapes, but I can't stand it's read noise either. It's 33e-. Still insanely high. High ISO is certainly a different story, but I can get low read noise (4e- or less) at high ISO with just about any camera on the market, I don't need a 1D X for that.

That number shouldn't be surprising at all, read noise scales linearly with pixel area. If we used the exact same technology as the 5D3 to make the 1DX we'd expect something like 33e * (22.3/18.0) ~ 40.6e read noise on a pixel basis. You can't just look at the read noise of a pixel in isolation though, that doesn't really tell you much about how "noisy" the picture will be. You have to look at the ratio between the read noise and mid-tone signal or maximum signal. That's what really tells you something about the quality of the sensor.

Read noise does not scale with pixel area, dark current does. I do agree that you need to look at all of the sources of noise before making claims about "how noisy" a sensor is.

 

[unfocused]

If they don't implement a Sony sensor like Nikon did they are done with DSLR' s.

Interesting you say that, Canon sell more DSLR's than anybody else yet you can confidently say that if they don't change one aspect of those cameras they are "done"? I think you are deluded.

Yes, they sell a lot of camera's but they are in a tech business. If they keep acting as ignorant as they are right now they willen loose large marketshares. That I can promis. They are not competitive in the sensor marketing anymore. That is a fact. They really have to come with something good with the 5dIV. It is just common sense.

What utter baloney.

Canon is "behind" in one tiny aspect of sensor technology. And, in that one area, the differences are only relevant under very limited circumstances and only at lower ISOs. They are decidedly not behind in many other aspects of sensor technology (DPAF, Extreme Low Light sensitivity, Extreme high resolution).

Your comments aren't common sense, they are delusional.

 

[privatebydesign]

If they don't implement a Sony sensor like Nikon did they are done with DSLR' s.

Interesting you say that, Canon sell more DSLR's than anybody else yet you can confidently say that if they don't change one aspect of those cameras they are "done"? I think you are deluded.

Yes, they sell a lot of camera's but they are in a tech business. If they keep acting as ignorant as they are right now they willen loose large marketshares. That I can promis. They are not competitive in the sensor marketing anymore. That is a fact. They really have to come with something good with the 5dIV. It is just common sense.

You can't promise anything. Canon are not in "the tech business" as you are implying, they are in retail, and just like VHS beating out the superior tech of Betamax, for the vast majority of buyers any camera tech available today is plenty good enough. In general, as has been proven by the sales records for many years, Canon know what they are doing and the desires of their customers far better than a vocal minority of a minuscule subsample of users found on forums like this.

People have said "they really have to come with something good" with every iteration of the 5, M, and 1 series, every single time people have laughed and derided and decried the spec sheets on release, and every single time the cameras have sold well and been well liked by the vast majority of their owners.

As for competitiveness, how competitive are Nikon and Sony in the lens market? They pale by comparison; how about the flash market? Canon wipe the floor with both with the 600-EX-RT and 430EX-III RT system.

Grow up, take some pictures, there are far more limitations placed on your creative capabilities by not having the lenses and the lights than having a couple of stops less low iso DR! Now that is a fact.

 

[jrista]

+1, but why not get a grey market 1D X, then again I guess you want the sensor upgrades that will come with the 5D IV

I priced out the full kit for the QSI 683WSG-8 CCD camera I am going to get, with the filters and various upgrades I need to use it with all of my telescopes and lenses:

Even if I did want a 1D X (and I really truly don't! ), I would WAY rather spend the money on all the goodies above.

 

[meywd]

+1, but why not get a grey market 1D X, then again I guess you want the sensor upgrades that will come with the 5D IV

I priced out the full kit for the QSI 683WSG-8 CCD camera I am going to get, with the filters and various upgrades I need to use it with all of my telescopes and lenses:

Even if I did want a 1D X (and I really truly don't! ), I would WAY rather spend the money on all the goodies above.

Nice and thanks for sharing, now make sure you update your website when you get them, need a reference to return to when I decide to dive in ;D, are there any high res photos taken with this camera - processed - to compare shots.

 

[scyrene]

If they don't implement a Sony sensor like Nikon did they are done with DSLR' s.

Interesting you say that, Canon sell more DSLR's than anybody else yet you can confidently say that if they don't change one aspect of those cameras they are "done"? I think you are deluded.

Yes, they sell a lot of camera's but they are in a tech business. If they keep acting as ignorant as they are right now they willen loose large marketshares. That I can promis. They are not competitive in the sensor marketing anymore. That is a fact. They really have to come with something good with the 5dIV. It is just common sense.

What utter baloney.

Canon is "behind" in one tiny aspect of sensor technology. And, in that one area, the differences are only relevant under very limited circumstances and only at lower ISOs. They are decidedly not behind in many other aspects of sensor technology (DPAF, Extreme Low Light sensitivity, Extreme high resolution).

Your comments aren't common sense, they are delusional.

Funny you call that utter baloney. The sensor in the camera is the most important thing in a camera especially if you are a landscape photographer. Taking pictures is about images you know. I am not saying Canon is making bad camera's. A camera is much more then just a sensor. Everyone knows that. And it is utter baloney to keep repeating that. I promiss you they will loose big market shares if they go on being ignorant to what competitors are doing. They will loose all, I repeat all landscapephotographers. They don't need good AF and all that stuff. They need good imagequality. I am already working around the technical limitations of the sensor of my 5d mark III the past 3 years. I am not the only one. I see every professional doing that.

Do you know what happens if professionals switch brands? Consumers will follow.

You're ignoring PBD's valid point. You said Canon would be "done", i.e. doomed, if they didn't implement certain technologies. The reply was, sales are not based on technology, with Betamax/VHS a classic example (but not the only one). "Taking pictures is about images" has nothing to do with that argument. Most people buy cameras for reasons other than a hard-headed analysis of the technology within.

Sadly all too few armchair critics seem to know the basics of sales and marketing. Being a successful large business is about selling to lots of people, and making a profit doing so. Producing the best* possible product is not necessary (I take no pleasure in that, but it's demonstrably the case).

*even assuming 'best' could be objectively and universally defined, which is generally impossible.

 

[Maiaibing]

We’re told that the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV will be announced before NAB 2016 in April. How far in advance of the show, we’re not sure.

A year late for sure. The 5DIV starts to sound like vapour-ware (even if Canon has promised its on the way...). Canon should bring out a very convincing upgrade from the 5DIII after all those years. Will be a huge disappointment if Canon goes "light" with their 5Dx upgrade again...

Meanwhile enjoying my 5DSR - its a good warm-up with its improved AF and customization options which I'm sure will be available on the 5DIV.

 

[jrista]

Nice and thanks for sharing, now make sure you update your website when you get them, need a reference to return to when I decide to dive in ;D, are there any high res photos taken with this camera - processed - to compare shots.

You can try here:

http://www.astrobin.com/search/?q=qsi683&search_type=0&solar_system_main_subject=&telescope_type=22&telescope_type=21&telescope_type=20&telescope_type=19&telescope_type=18&telescope_type=17&telescope_type=16&telescope_type=15&telescope_type=14&telescope_type=13&telescope_type=12&telescope_type=11&telescope_type=10&telescope_type=9&telescope_type=8&telescope_type=7&telescope_type=6&telescope_type=5&telescope_type=4&telescope_type=3&telescope_type=2&telescope_type=1&telescope_type=0&telescope_type=any&camera_type=0&aperture_min=&aperture_max=&pixel_size_min=&pixel_size_max=&start_date=&end_date=&integration_min=&integration_max=&moon_phase_min=&moon_phase_max=&license=0&license=1&license=2&license=3&license=4&license=5&license=6

Not everyone has the same processing skill, so the processed results vary rather widely. However, for the well processed ones, you can see the quality. The resolution is higher than you can get with a comparable APS-C sized CMOS sensor, exposures are usually much deeper, etc.

 

[meywd]

Nice and thanks for sharing, now make sure you update your website when you get them, need a reference to return to when I decide to dive in ;D, are there any high res photos taken with this camera - processed - to compare shots.

You can try here:

http://www.astrobin.com/search/?q=qsi683&search_type=0&solar_system_main_subject=&telescope_type=22&telescope_type=21&telescope_type=20&telescope_type=19&telescope_type=18&telescope_type=17&telescope_type=16&telescope_type=15&telescope_type=14&telescope_type=13&telescope_type=12&telescope_type=11&telescope_type=10&telescope_type=9&telescope_type=8&telescope_type=7&telescope_type=6&telescope_type=5&telescope_type=4&telescope_type=3&telescope_type=2&telescope_type=1&telescope_type=0&telescope_type=any&camera_type=0&aperture_min=&aperture_max=&pixel_size_min=&pixel_size_max=&start_date=&end_date=&integration_min=&integration_max=&moon_phase_min=&moon_phase_max=&license=0&license=1&license=2&license=3&license=4&license=5&license=6

Not everyone has the same processing skill, so the processed results vary rather widely. However, for the well processed ones, you can see the quality. The resolution is higher than you can get with a comparable APS-C sized CMOS sensor, exposures are usually much deeper, etc.

wow great results, but of course it needs the lens/telescope to go with it

 

[dak723]

If they don't implement a Sony sensor like Nikon did they are done with DSLR' s.

Interesting you say that, Canon sell more DSLR's than anybody else yet you can confidently say that if they don't change one aspect of those cameras they are "done"? I think you are deluded.

Yes, they sell a lot of camera's but they are in a tech business. If they keep acting as ignorant as they are right now they willen loose large marketshares. That I can promis. They are not competitive in the sensor marketing anymore. That is a fact. They really have to come with something good with the 5dIV. It is just common sense.

What utter baloney.

Canon is "behind" in one tiny aspect of sensor technology. And, in that one area, the differences are only relevant under very limited circumstances and only at lower ISOs. They are decidedly not behind in many other aspects of sensor technology (DPAF, Extreme Low Light sensitivity, Extreme high resolution).

Your comments aren't common sense, they are delusional.

Funny you call that utter baloney. The sensor in the camera is the most important thing in a camera especially if you are a landscape photographer. Taking pictures is about images you know. I am not saying Canon is making bad camera's. A camera is much more then just a sensor. Everyone knows that. And it is utter baloney to keep repeating that. I promiss you they will loose big market shares if they go on being ignorant to what competitors are doing. They will loose all, I repeat all landscapephotographers. They don't need good AF and all that stuff. They need good imagequality. I am already working around the technical limitations of the sensor of my 5d mark III the past 3 years. I am not the only one. I see every professional doing that.

Do you know what happens if professionals switch brands? Consumers will follow.

Please let us know if you have actually tried the competitors (presumably Sony or Nikon with the Exmor). And tell us exactly how the sensor has made your pics so much better in image quality. I have tried (twice) to replace my Canon 6D with the Sony A7 and then the Sony A7II. I took the same pics with each camera to compare. The Sonys were returned. In my opinion - and to my eye - the Canon's pics were better or there was no discernible difference. Oh, by the way, I shot only landscapes to compare. So I am curious as to what you find is so much better.

Or are you just basing your opinion on what you have read on the internet?

 

[MagnumJoe]

If they don't implement a Sony sensor like Nikon did they are done with DSLR' s.

Interesting you say that, Canon sell more DSLR's than anybody else yet you can confidently say that if they don't change one aspect of those cameras they are "done"? I think you are deluded.

Yes, they sell a lot of camera's but they are in a tech business. If they keep acting as ignorant as they are right now they willen loose large marketshares. That I can promis. They are not competitive in the sensor marketing anymore. That is a fact. They really have to come with something good with the 5dIV. It is just common sense.

You can't promise anything. Canon are not in "the tech business" as you are implying, they are in retail, and just like VHS beating out the superior tech of Betamax, for the vast majority of buyers any camera tech available today is plenty good enough. In general, as has been proven by the sales records for many years, Canon know what they are doing and the desires of their customers far better than a vocal minority of a minuscule subsample of users found on forums like this.

People have said "they really have to come with something good" with every iteration of the 5, M, and 1 series, every single time people have laughed and derided and decried the spec sheets on release, and every single time the cameras have sold well and been well liked by the vast majority of their owners.

As for competitiveness, how competitive are Nikon and Sony in the lens market? They pale by comparison; how about the flash market? Canon wipe the floor with both with the 600-EX-RT and 430EX-III RT system.

Grow up, take some pictures, there are far more limitations placed on your creative capabilities by not having the lenses and the lights than having a couple of stops less low iso DR! Now that is a fact.

For me this statement says it all.

As for competitiveness, how competitive are Nikon and Sony in the lens market? They pale by comparison; how about the flash market? Canon wipe the floor with both with the 600-EX-RT and 430EX-III RT system.

Right on privatebydesign.

 

[Don Haines]

If they don't implement a Sony sensor like Nikon did they are done with DSLR' s.

Interesting you say that, Canon sell more DSLR's than anybody else yet you can confidently say that if they don't change one aspect of those cameras they are "done"? I think you are deluded.

Yes, they sell a lot of camera's but they are in a tech business. If they keep acting as ignorant as they are right now they willen loose large marketshares. That I can promis. They are not competitive in the sensor marketing anymore. That is a fact. They really have to come with something good with the 5dIV. It is just common sense.

What utter baloney.

Canon is "behind" in one tiny aspect of sensor technology. And, in that one area, the differences are only relevant under very limited circumstances and only at lower ISOs. They are decidedly not behind in many other aspects of sensor technology (DPAF, Extreme Low Light sensitivity, Extreme high resolution).

Your comments aren't common sense, they are delusional.

Funny you call that utter baloney. The sensor in the camera is the most important thing in a camera especially if you are a landscape photographer. Taking pictures is about images you know. I am not saying Canon is making bad camera's. A camera is much more then just a sensor. Everyone knows that. And it is utter baloney to keep repeating that. I promiss you they will loose big market shares if they go on being ignorant to what competitors are doing. They will loose all, I repeat all landscapephotographers. They don't need good AF and all that stuff. They need good imagequality. I am already working around the technical limitations of the sensor of my 5d mark III the past 3 years. I am not the only one. I see every professional doing that.

Do you know what happens if professionals switch brands? Consumers will follow.

Everyone has their opinion.....

Mine is that the autofocus system is the most important aspect of a modern DSLR, followed by the lenses.

Nobody cares what the colour depth or dynamic range is on an out of focus picture....